I thought this group may enjoy this read about a suggestion on an option to take in the Google antitrust lawsuit. Of particular interest is that certain groups feel that the “right” approach is that everyone should be able to surveil the population, Google-style and the choice quote:
The judge repeats some of the most cherished and absurd canards of the marketing industry, like the idea that people actually like advertisements, provided that they’re relevant, so spying on people is actually doing them a favor by making it easier to target the right ads to them.
Man I just wish all unsolicited ads would be banned, it would make the world a much better place. If I want promotional content or information about product portfolio from somewhere, I will request it directly.
I feel like the whole advertising machine needs to be reimagined. I’m not opposed to learning about new and better products, but I’ve been conditioned to immediately distrust anything coming to me in the form of an ad. Pair this with the mindset of advertisers that they can’t do their job without stalking every individual and it’s a recipe for a global-level human rights violation.
Because we all need targeted ads
I wonder if part of the reason for supporting this is that they like the secondary effect that all this information is now also available to governments
that could be, but reading between the lines, it seems that the judges have just been brainwashed to think like the media companies want. The article mentions “users WANT targeted ads” and yet when given the option, 90% of FB users shut off targeting.
One thing I forgot to add to this was a different article by the same author: https://pluralistic.net/2024/08/19/apologetics-spotters-guide/
Referencing a book, the article lays out the corporate BS playbook for pushing back on changes. In the anti monopoly ad space, they’re currently running play 1: there is no problem, people want targeted ads.
